Man at Her Feet, the Law between Them

At a Dhaka courthouse, I watched a man collapse at a woman’s feet.

He held her legs and pleaded, “I have accepted everything you have done. I have done what you asked. Let me live. Please withdraw the cases.”

His wife allegedly filed cases against him under sections 11(b) and 11(c) of the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act, 2000, sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 2018, and suits for dower and maintenance under section 5 of the Family Courts Act, 2023, after he refused to leave his parents. He spent 52 days in jail. Eventually, he agreed to pay Tk10 lakh towards his wife’s mohr, alimony and other expenses she had demanded. But the wife is now demanding that his parents bow their heads before her and beg for an apology; only then, she says, will she withdraw the cases.

This is no longer an isolated or rare incident in Bangladesh. Bangladesh enacted a bundle of laws to protect women, including the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act, 2000, Dowry Prohibition Act, 2018, Acid Control Act, 2002 and Domestic Violence Act, 2010. The concern arises when these protective laws are allegedly used for intimidation, retaliation or prolonged harassment.
 
Law Minister Md Asaduzzaman reportedly observed that around 90 per cent of cases under the women and children protection law are false and sometimes used against husbands and in-laws to humiliate or harass opponents. Former Law Minister Barrister Shafique Ahmed similarly remarked in 2013 that around 80 per cent of cases under the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act and Dowry Prohibition Act were false. A recent joint Bangladesh Supreme Court-BRAC study reportedly found that the conviction rate in women and child abuse cases to be 3 per cent, reflecting concerns over abuse of these laws.

Some activists use the term ‘positive discrimination’ to describe these laws. But discrimination is discrimination, and it can never be positive. The Constitution does not permit discrimination and guarantees equal protection of the law to all. Articles 27, 28 and 31 recognise equality, non-discrimination and protection of law. When laws are applied in a manner that allegedly discriminates against a particular gender, or when they are misused against members of that gender, questions may arise about the extent to which constitutional rights are being protected.

Consider Sheikh Khairul Alam of Narayanganj, who spent 77 days in jail after his wife filed a case in 2014 that remained pending for years. Although no specific allegation was established against him, he continued to appear before the court every two or three months. Khairul and other alleged victims of abuse therefore, formed a human chain on the premises of the National Press Club recently, putting forward 21 demands including punishment and compensation for false cases, investigation before arrest, post-divorce protection, remedies for abused men, safeguards for male victims and the establishment of a Ministry of Men’s Affairs. 

Investigation, prosecution, medical evidence, arrest, bails and trial management must all face stronger institutional scrutiny. Bangladesh needs a system capable of distinguishing victims from false complainants, offenders from the falsely accused, and genuine evidence from manufactured allegations. Existing women protection laws should undergo comprehensive review by legal experts, judges, prosecutors, law-enforcement officials, rights groups and legislators.

The issue even reached the High Court through a writ petition seeking directions for the enactment of a Men’s Torture Prevention and Suppression Act, arguing that men facing domestic violence and the alleged misuse of women- and dowry-related laws lack specific statutory protection. The High Court rejected the writ, but the case drew attention to allegations that existing laws are being misused against men. The rejection does not establish that women-protection laws are unconstitutional or flawless, or that a separate law for men is the only solution. It does, however, leave a broader question about what effective statutory remedies are available to a man who can prove violence, coercion or malicious proceedings.

That question becomes more pressing when a case collapses. An acquittal does not automatically mean that a complaint was deliberately false; a genuine complaint may fail because of inadequate evidence. But where a court establishes that a case was knowingly fabricated, maliciously instituted or supported by deliberately false evidence, there must be consequences.

We are now living in a cruel, irrational and inhuman society. Lawmakers, law-enforcement authorities, complainants, their influencers and advocates who knowingly seek to establish falsehood as truth often fail to consider that an accused person may lose employment, reputation and family stability, face arrest and spend years appearing before the courts.

Male victims often remain silent because of shame, ridicule, family pressure and fear of being treated as weak. There are allegations of false cases arising from land disputes, family quarrels, matrimonial conflicts and even trivial incidents. There have been several reported cases of suicide, including those involving a young doctor in Chittagong and a police officer in Mirpur, Dhaka, who were allegedly unable to seek legal recourse after facing mental torture by their wives or being deceived, followed by threats of being implicated in false cases under the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act, the Dowry Prohibition Act or the Domestic Violence Act. Such allegations require investigation. But misuse becomes dangerous when litigation becomes pressure.

If proceedings are deliberately engineered to cause such harm, simply ending the case may not be an adequate remedy. A failed case should not automatically punish a complainant; proven deliberate abuse must have consequences.

Courts rarely exercise suo motu powers to address abuses of legal process, even when proceedings under these laws reveal serious irregularities.

There should be statutory compensation, litigation costs and appropriate sanctions where deliberate fabrication is established. The same should apply to fabricated medical documents or knowingly false evidence. Those who deliberately manufacture evidence should face professional or legal consequences.

Prolonged adjournments, time petitions, absent complainants or witnesses, delayed investigation and warrants over non-appearance can turn a six-month statutory expectation into litigation lasting five years or more. The burden falls on victims, accused persons, witnesses, police and courts. If a case remains pending for years, justice itself becomes punishment.

Investigation, prosecution, medical evidence, arrest, bails and trial management must all face stronger institutional scrutiny. Bangladesh needs a system capable of distinguishing victims from false complainants, offenders from the falsely accused, and genuine evidence from manufactured allegations. Existing women protection laws should undergo comprehensive review by legal experts, judges, prosecutors, law-enforcement officials, rights groups and legislators.

There should be stronger safeguards before arrest in matrimonial disputes, without preventing genuine victims from obtaining protection. An independent mechanism could examine repeated matrimonial litigation, fabricated medical evidence and prolonged proceedings; courts should have authority to impose compensation and sanctions for abuse of process.

The objective should not be to abolish women-protection laws or give men preferential treatment. It should be equal protection. A woman who suffers violence must approach the law without fear; a man must have the same confidence. A genuine complainant must be protected from retaliation, while anyone who weaponises the law must face accountability.

When justice becomes a weapon, law must disarm it. Bangladesh does not need gender against gender. It needs law against violence, evidence against falsehood and justice without discrimination.